POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[beachbum111111]

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe CIA will just give up their attitude that Shi'ites are apostates deserving of death. Maybe they'll send them on an all-expenses-paid vacation to the Fiji Islands. What's with all the pessimism today?

Out of the muslim refugees coming to the United States, how many of them are Shia?

[Ad Bot]

[SeventhSandwich]

Yea, Annoying Orange doesn't care about protecting US citizens, he just wants them to hate foreigners. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

Not particularly, no. Instead of going after demonstrable threats against Americans, he's inventing new ones.

Watch out, CIA is going to hunt down every last refugee and behead them.

"Every last refugee" is not pivotal to this argument. Thousands will die - the exact percentage is irrelevant.

Out of the muslim refugees coming to the United States, how many of them are Shia?

Probably not most - owing to the fact that the region they come from is Sunni-majority. But CIA is responsible for a huge deal of collateral damage against Sunnis as well. I bring up only the Shi'ites because it's most brown townogous to the boat of German Jews that I cited earlier.

[Red Spy]

Not particularly, no. Instead of going after demonstrable threats against Americans, he's inventing new ones. 

Like CIA

[Ipquarx]

Still waiting on proof. Not sure why it's so hard to present.

The forget you talking about do you not know the first forgetin' amendment????
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Tell me where the forget in that it says that the constitution only selectively applies to laws, because you don't need to be a forgetin lawer to see that it doesn't say that anywhere

[extremely extreme]

I'm not talking about the constitution applying to selective laws, I've been talking about how it only applies a to those in the US

[Foxscotch]

I'm not talking about the constitution applying to selective laws, I've been talking about how it only applies a to those in the US

source ?

[Ipquarx]

I'm not talking about the constitution applying to selective laws, I've been talking about how it only applies a to those in the US

But that literally makes no sense. If a law concerns an establishment of religion it concerns an establishment of religion. There is absolutely no stipulation saying that that establishment has to be a part of the USA.

[extremely extreme]

But that literally makes no sense. If a law concerns an establishment of religion it concerns an establishment of religion. There is absolutely no stipulation saying that that establishment has to be a part of the USA.

In President Annoying Orange's executive order, he stated that "to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." It does mention religion however, it does not mention a specific religion. I'm not sure how this checks out legally but, we've already been biased in the religions of refugees that we have been bringing in. In 2016, 38,901 Muslim refugees came in and 37,521 Christian refugees came in. Seeing as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) isn't unconstitutional (which is the law that gives the president the power to halt immigration), I seen no reason why President Annoying Orange's immigration ban should be considered unconstitutional according to the first amendment.

[Red Spy]

In President Annoying Orange's executive order, he stated that "to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." It does mention religion however, it does not mention a specific religion. I'm not sure how this checks out legally but, we've already been biased in the religions of refugees that we have been bringing in. In 2016, 38,901 Muslim refugees came in and 37,521 Christian refugees came in. Seeing as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) isn't unconstitutional (which is the law that gives the president the power to halt immigration), I seen no reason why President Annoying Orange's immigration ban should be considered unconstitutional according to the first amendment.

Let's also bring up the legal definition of refugee

Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

[Ipquarx]

In President Annoying Orange's executive order, he stated that "to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." It does mention religion however, it does not mention a specific religion. I'm not sure how this checks out legally but, we've already been biased in the religions of refugees that we have been bringing in.

None of us could really say whether it's unconstitutional or not. That's why it's left to the judges.

It could be that because every single country listed is a muslim majority country (by choice), that its intent is to disallow Muslims from seeking refugee status, and hence would be unconstitutional by its intent.
It could also be that it's unconstitutional because it discriminates based on religion at all, and has nothing to do with intent.
It could also be that you can't restrict immigration based on country, which is a legitimate concern.
It could also be that it disallows people with existing green cards and visas to enter the country, which is another legitimate concern.

I'm not sure because I'm not a judge.

[Red Spy]

It could be that because every single country listed is a muslim majority country (by choice), that its intent is to disallow Muslims from seeking refugee status, and hence would be unconstitutional by its intent.

Assuming intent is really risky and is something we all should stay away from

It could also be that it's unconstitutional because it discriminates based on religion at all, and has nothing to do with intent.

The EO said religious persecution, which could imply a sect of Muslims could persecute a different sect

It could also be that you can't restrict immigration based on country, which is a legitimate concern.

Not when other presidents have done the same thing

It could also be that it disallows people with existing green cards and visas to enter the country, which is another legitimate concern.

Didn't they clear that stuff up in the first day of the ban

[Kumquat]

Why can't we make them go to other Muslim countries so they can be out of warzones and avoid a culture clash

Which country would that be

[Katamari007]

forget Annoying Orange and forget white people

[Ipquarx]

Assuming intent is really risky and is something we all should stay away from

The EO said religious persecution, which could imply a sect of Muslims could persecute a different sect

Not when other presidents have done the same thing

Didn't they clear that stuff up in the first day of the ban

1. That's why i'm saying "could be," i'm not sure
2. Then you're getting into the technicalities of "what is a muslim," because if one sect is persecuting another, and they both qualify as "muslim," since muslim is the majority there they won't be allowed anyway.
3. Doesn't matter if those are illegal as well
4. I don't know if it's still being enforced and I don't know if the actual text of the EO has been changed to reflect that.

[extremely extreme]

It could also be that you can't restrict immigration based on country, which is a legitimate concern.

This part I know for sure is completely legal, that's what the Immigration Nationality Act is.